lecture 9 and 10 - EU foreign policy Flashcards
EUs response to Russia’s aggression on Ukraine
- policy towards Russia in general difficult as there are internal divisions
surprising reaction for the EU: fast, strong and united
- overcoming business, financial and energy interests (differences)
- overcoming very different threat perceptions among MS
unprecedented: EU acquires and delivers lethal weapons to UKR in the framework of the EU Peace Facility (created a year before)
this response and its significance?
“Europe is a geopolitical dwarf”
EU stands tall as a giant: peaks of civilisation, zero prospect of war, enormous co-operation
it stands as a dwarf: reluctance to contemplate needed strategic initiatives + shrinking EU footprint on the world stage
-> the role/influence of the EU depends on what aspects you look at
- economic giant
- political dwarf
- defence pygmy
EU external relations vs EU foreign policy
external relations = broader than foreign policy: also includes enlargement, public health, trade etc.
BUT also: it was thought that only states could have foreign policy
(20 years ago it was first coined that EU may have foreign policy like states)
-> we often talk about external relations rather than foreign action
Hill: foreign policy =
- the sum of official external relations conducted by an independent actor (usually a state) in IR
*missing: goal/strategy? e.g. Allen incl. a strategy
Allen: EU
- is statelike, but does not formally aspire statehood
- it may have a “foreign policy”, but it clearly lacks a monopoly on foreign policy-making in Europe
- it thus seems to exist in a conceptual no man’s land
EPC
Seen as second Europe (first is the European Community)
Characteristics: flexibility, confidentiality, informality
- no big expectations, when something was achieved it was big/positive
- no procedures -> quick response
- confidentiality seen as necessary to overcome initial mistrust
-> coordination reflex among the diplomats
- 1970s: formalization (De Gualle resigned)
European Single Act (SEA) 1986 gives political cooperation legal basis and creates a permanetn EPC Secretariat in Brussels
!was kept seperate from the European Community (e.g. Diff locations even when both meetings were on the same day)
Met every six months at location current presidency
“Procedure as substitute for Policy?” (Allen and Wallace)
not much content, mostly direction of what the institutions would do
(Gimlich? formula = meeting between US and EU informally, each 6 months)
History EU foreign policy
- European Political Cooperation (EPC)
- Maastricht Treaty -> CFSP
- Treaty of Lisbon
External Relations of the EU
Intergovernmental
Greater involvement MS
- Common Foreign Security Policy
- Common Security and Defence Policy
Shared competence
Mix MS and Commission
- development coordination
- economic, financial and technical cooperation
- neighbourhood policy
- financial aid
Exclusive competence
Great involvement Commission
- common commercial policy (trade)
CFSP
Common Foreign and Security Policy
Created at Maastricht Treaty as integral part EU, but as separate pillar (diff decision-making)
- Provisions regarding defence: diverging views and very cautious wording (UK and NL wanted slow proceeding: we already had NATO)
- Issues of consistency
Amsterdam Treaty -> High Representative for CFSP (Javier Solana 1999)
- was SG NATO before, kind of made the job itself, wanted to become foreign minister of the union
- did not have much powers: mostly about coordination + a bit of representation
The changes of the Treaty of Lisbon
Treaty about external relations: much changes
= Motivated by consistency: binding policies together
1. Union acquires legal personality 2. Pillar structure disappears 3. New Permanent President of the Council 4. "High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy" (NOT a foreign minister) 5. Joint Actions / Common Positions -> Decisions (dont worry to much about this) 6. European External Action Service 7. ESDP becomes CSDP 8. Enhanced cooperation in defence
(interview with Robert Cooper)
- strengths EU foreign policy: MS agree on more than you think (even when they disagree with eachother)
- weakness EU as foreign policy actor: don’t always agree or have good answers, no machinery for following things up (e.g. in Balkans)
Potential EU greater than ever (now we have the machinery) - EU dealing with great powers: mixed record, work in progress:
e.g. With China really mixed interests among MS
EU got better, more united, at dealing with Russia
EU hard to keep together when disagreeing with behavior USA
scope of Common Foreign and Security Policy
treaty: competence covers all areas of foreign policy and security (+progressive framing that may lead to a common defence)
*no legal instrument to force compliance, but no one wants to break informal code of conduct: treaty talks about spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity
Actors in EU Foreign Policy
with high level meetings with external actors (e.g. president USA), the greeter is usually the president of the European Council + sometimes Commission President + sometimes EP president
*current European Council and European Commission President have tense relationship
actors (you don’t need to know all of them by detail)
- European Council + President of the European Council
- High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP)
- European External Action Service (EEAS) = diplomatic service of the HRVP
- The Council (FAC, COREPER II, PSC, Working Groups)
- the rotating Presidency
- European Commission ‘fully associated’
- European Parliament (limited role)
- no prerogatives for the ECJ
level of heads of state -> President of the European Council
level of foreign ministers -> HRVP; Trade - Commission
the European Council in European External Relations
determines the objectives and provides guidelines of CFSP, but has no legislative functions (still: what they say really influential)
- decides by consensus
- can decide by unanimity to extend the areas covered by the QMV
role has been increasing: is meeting more and more often (more crises -> foreign ministers don’t have mandate or don’t feel comfortable deciding)
economic affairs and foreign policy dominate the agenda
in the European Council: the foreign ministers left -> became more collegial
President of the European Council
in CFSP
= position introduced by position of Lisbon
(all where former heads of state or gov.)
elected for 2.5 years by European Council (renewable once)
has external representation function (shred with European Commission in some conferences)
- (semi-)permanent chair of the European Council
- Treaty: shall endeavour to facilitate meetings of the European Council
- convenes extraordinary meetings of the European Council
the current Prsident expressed clear ambitions in the area of external relations
The HRVP
- appointed by a European Council QMV with agreement of the President of the European Commission + vote of consent by the EP
- “double hatted”: chair of FAC and Vice President of the Commission
-> would bridge foreign affairs council and the Commission (did not work in practice: is too big a task to do everything) - assisted by the EEAS, supported by Commission and Council service
= responsible for everyday conduct foreign and security policy + consistency European External Action
art. 18 and 21 of the Treaty outline functions
external representation - President European Council vs High Representative
similar job description, but conducted at different levels
decision-making in CFSP
unanimity as general rule = every country has veto power (-> MS can’t say: Brussels decided)
- some exceptions: QMV (mainly: implementation measures)
-
Constructive Abstention (1997 Treaty of Amsterdam): allows for decisions to be taken even if not everyone is in favor: MS can abstain whilst others still go ahead
e.g. CSDP missions and Denmark
introducing more QMV (Juncker) = sensitive topic
J. Delors: most important decisions are taken by unanimity, details can be decided by QMV
!PSC = political and security committee (NICOLAIDIS prepare meetings)
COREPER II (ANTICI group)
most decisions are taken at junior levels
